Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Burke‐Fahn‐Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale and 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough an increasing number of trials are reported on the treatment of generalized or segmental isolated dystonia, the minimal clinically important difference thresholds for the most frequently reported outcome measures are still undetermined.ObjectivesTo estimate the minimal clinically important difference for the Burke‐Fahn‐Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale and the 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey in generalized or segmental dystonia.MethodsA total of 898 paired examinations of 198 consecutive patients, aged >18 years, with idiopathic and inherited (torsin family 1 member A positive) segmental and generalized isolated dystonia were analyzed. To calculate the minimal clinically important difference thresholds, both anchor‐ and distribution‐based methods were used simultaneously.ResultsAny improvement >16.6% or worsening larger than 21.5% on the Burke‐Fahn‐Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale indicates a minimal, yet clinically relevant, change. Threshold values for the Burke‐Fahn‐Marsden Dystonia Disability Scale were 0.5 points for both decline and improvement. Cut‐off scores for the Physical Component Summary, the Mental Component Summary, and the Global (Total or Overall) Score of the 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey were 5.5 and 5.5, 6.5 and 7.5, and 7.5 and 8.5 points for clinically meaningful improvement and deterioration, respectively.ConclusionsThe minimal clinically important difference represents the smallest change in an outcome measure that is meaningful to patients. Our estimates for the Burke‐Fahn‐Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale and the 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey may allow more reliable judgment of the clinical relevance of different treatments for segmental and generalized isolated dystonia. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions for individuals with cerebral palsy and dystonia: a systematic review update and meta‐analysis

“…4b ). 68 While the funnel plot suggested possible publication bias for the analysis of all studies, asymmetry was not detected for the analysis of studies reporting on the BFMDRS‐Movement (Fig. S2 , online supporting information).…”

“…5b ). 68 This finding is limited by serious risk of bias and imprecision. Publication bias was undetected (Fig.…”

“…6b ). 68 This finding is limited by serious study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency as a result of heterogeneity in the magnitude of effect across studies. DBS may improve pain, compared with not receiving DBS in individuals with CP and dystonia (GRADE very low certainty).…”

Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Lessens Acquired Dystonia: Report of Two Patients and Systematic Review of Published Cases

“…Threshold values for the DDS were 0.5 points for improvement. The cutoff score for the global score of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey was 6.5 points for clinically meaningful improvement [33]. According to this statement, the vast majority of patients in this series had a meaningful improvement after STN-DBS (Table 2).…”

Low-frequency oscillation suppression in dystonia: Implications for adaptive deep brain stimulation

“…Lastly, we observed that the LFO of patients who had been chronically treated with cDBS were considerably lower than those of DBS-naïve patients, even when stimulation was suspended. From all the patients treated with chronic cDBS, most of them (4/5) presented more than the minimal clinically important improvement in dystonic symptoms [11] one year after DBS implantation. Since LFO are correlated with the severity of dystonic symptoms [4], it is possible that the LFO-suppression that takes place during cDBS occurs in a gradual manner, parallel to the gradual reduction in dystonic symptoms observed after cDBS is switched on.…”